But isn't that because of disagreements with the applying country's internal policies?

Not for Macedonia... it satisfied every formal requirement outside of every existing NATO member agreeing to its admission (in that case Greece because of the name dispute). NATO members (and thus NATO) have always had absolute discretion when it comes to accepting new members even if they fulfill the official criterea, however petty a reason they eventually give.

The alleged agreement in the Two Plus Four Agreement (it's not a formal part of the treaty but enough participants have mentioned that a commitment was made that I think it's generally accepted that it existed) wasn't that the states in question couldn't apply to NATO, it was that NATO wouldn't accept them.

One of the things that comes with being in NATO is a guarantee of military protection if an outsider (in this case, Russia) tries something untoward. That's most likely why those nations petitioned to join NATO. So they would be protected against military aggression by nations like Russia. Protection they obviously need. It would be foolish to have told them no.

That's a bit like the old "hen or egg" question. Would these countries have needed NATO protection without NATO "encroaching" on Russia in the first place? Like all "what if" questions it's impossible to answer without a time machine and some serious messing with history.

I don't dispute a lot of that actually. It's not so much that I'm trying to side with the US on everything it does everywhere. I'm just not siding with Russia invading/ annexing Crimea and destabilizing Eastern Ukraine in this particular case. They went and invaded the place. That wasn't necessary in my view. And it makes people uncomfortable. We may start to ask, "Hmm, what else will they decide is in their interest? Just how much does Russia need to feel safe, now? Who do they have to take over on any given day, exactly?" If the US bombing and invading isn't good, why do you expect others to accept Russia doing the same?

For that matter, why is it okay for Russia to manipulate the Ukrainian government by insisting that Yanukovich and his hated police are the only acceptable rulers, in the face of a massive popular revolt? Funny how they just happen to want only the foreign policy (and police state powers) that Putin thinks Ukraine should use. Or is it, in fact, Putin's policy to keep Ukraine weak, corrupt and divided one way or another? Where did all these "oligarchs" people are worried about come from anyway? A political system that Putin supported for managing Ukraine. No? Whether the IMF and the Western system are ideal, or even just -- that is a fair question too. But it should be a separate question.

I think that's another fundamental difference, you don't think the US is involved in the destablization of Ukraine. I think it's quite clear that the US is involved, if you actually look at it from that perspective, I think things make a bit more sense. Ukraine and Russia has a long history together, I don't think Russia gains anything by destablizing Ukraine. On the subject of Crimea, it is a region that was handed over to Ukraine back in 1954 when the whole thing was the USSR. And Crimea did not get a chance to self determine when Ukraine broke away from USSR. Of course, the timing of this is very unfortunate but the people of Crimea, I don't think viewed the Russian' troops as invading them.

That isn't quite grammatically clear to me, but... Tell me who you trust that seems to have more objective reporting.

I think firstly you have to access why people might report things in a specific way, I think every media source has a reason to report a particular point of view. Once you know why then it's up to you to gather information from multiple and possibly conflicting sources and weed out the truth. Of course that'll be your version of it, it might not be objective or even completely true. But I think it'll be more accurate than just looking at things from one angle.

In Georgia, I could actually catch Russia Today on cable TV and some of their reporting was interesting... Now, sometimes they would rant on in ways that I could just logically, or on general principle, say were leading to silly conclusions. But they did also have some serious concern for human rights and an interest in issues the US press has stopped covering in recent years. I appreciated them trying, just for that part. I would listen to someone like Abby Martin, just to wait for the few parts that she got partly or almost right, a little burst of insight you wouldn't hear somewhere else. And I wish maybe a few more people would or could have. But in this case, you can see even some of RT's English-speaking staff have outright quit in protest at Russia's actions and Putin's media manipulations. That kind of suggests to me, there is probably a whole lot of manipulation across the Russian press and maybe its sympathizers elsewhere. I think to myself: If even these people are giving up, who is honest and reasonably thorough over there?

I like the Guardian to some extent, because among the Western press that actually goes and gathers some facts I can consider, they tend to have relatively balanced reporting (heck, they even gave Lavrov a space to talk, among certain editorials I found a bit silly myself -- but it was there to read). But that thing about worrying about fabrications? It swings both ways. When I see pro-Putin people in the Guardian comments often saying there are no Russian troops operating aggressively in Crimea in the face of what seem like reports with a bit more detail in the West that there are -- and by now, when everyone thinks he's won that, even Putin is saying there have been -- then I tend to suspect some Russian news sources are not so reliable.

You can't possibly be serious when you say that the western press is more balanced. Maybe they are when it's about things that don't directly matter to them. I think that in the west the government doesn't directly control the media like how it is done in Russia or China. However you need to understand these media companies still do seek good ties with the government, they are still businesses ran in a country. The government very much can and will pull strings to use them to manipulate the masses. Don't let the guise of democracy and freedom of speech make you think otherwise.

One of the things that comes with being in NATO is a guarantee of military protection if an outsider (in this case, Russia) tries something untoward. That's most likely why those nations petitioned to join NATO. So they would be protected against military aggression by nations like Russia. Protection they obviously need. It would be foolish to have told them no.

I can tell you that the most aggressive nation in the current world, and it's not Russia, it's the US. Do you see a treaty organization protecting smaller countries from the US? Do you think there is a obvious need for that?

That's a bit like the old "hen or egg" question. Would these countries have needed NATO protection without NATO "encroaching" on Russia in the first place? Like all "what if" questions it's impossible to answer without a time machine and some serious messing with history.

Considering Russia's behavior to its neighbors in the past, I would way the Baltic nations and those of Eastern Europe need NATO protection. They have only recently (in the last 20 years or so since the fall of the Soviet Union) been allowed to say and do what they want. They endured almost 50 years of heavy Soviet occupation. that's something most of them do NOT want to relive again. They clearly want closer ties to Europe, not the Neo-Soviet Russian Empire that Putin is building.

I can tell you that the most aggressive nation in the current world, and it's not Russia, it's the US. Do you see a treaty organization protecting smaller countries from the US? Do you think there is a obvious need for that?

By your definition yes, by others? No. Over all, a US led invasion is a -good- thing. Not a bad thing. Stop trying to make the Russians seem like nice people. As a government they are NOT nice. They are a cruel and petty people more concerned about increasing their own power and restoring the Russians to their glory days (in whatever manner they can and fuck the people they tromp all over. If Russia wants it, you'd better give it to them or they will kill you).

The Russian record of humans rights, of the freedom of the press and such is very poor. Russia is looking to literally absorb its neighbors and if they can get the world to look to the side while they do that to Ukraine, they will do it to other places too. Moldavia, more of Ukraine, the Baltic states, Finland, Belarus and probably other nations around/on their borders. Reinstating a 'historical' Russian claim and 'protecting ethnic Russian citizens'. And you can bet other nations would look to use the exact same excuse on their neighbors to grab land. I could see some in Mexico trying to use that as justification to try to seize the American Southwest. There's already hints in places like Hungary that are looking at using the same methods Putin is using.

You seem to be trying to paint Russia as not a bad guy here. Clearly they are. Putin admitted to lying about Russian troops and special forces being in the Crimea when he was saying they weren't. He's willing to lie to get what he wants, and to kill to do it to. The man is nearly a Czar in all but name now with the government rubber stamping everything for him.

Is the US clean? Probably not, but it's nowhere near the level Russia is at and the US is not trying to annex its neighbors either. The US is sending what aid it feels is good and do not forget that the Europeans have a clear desire to not see Ukraine become Russian and much of Eastern Europe has -no- desire to come under Russian domination again. They do not like the Red Bear. Russia isn't kind to the citizens of its neighbors when it sticks its fingers in their affairs.

Edit: It has been brought to my attention that what I posted could be offensive to some by my being somewhat unclear, so I will clarify it. When I said Russia was petty and cruel, I meant the government. It's clear that it is not the most fair or open or honest government by any means (kleptocracy and thugocracy have been used to describe it by international press). I'm sure the majority of Russian citizens are decent and honest people who only want a good and decent life for themselves and their people, so I do not mean to insult them. The Russian government though, deserves any scorn it gets. It's also clear the government wants a return to the days of Soviet level world power (maybe by not being Soviets themselves, but the same level of international power.). The way they are going about it isn't necessarily good though and their eastern neighbors are understandably nervous. Russia does not have the best record when dealing with its neighbors.

Considering Russia's behavior to its neighbors in the past, I would way the Baltic nations and those of Eastern Europe need NATO protection. They have only recently (in the last 20 years or so since the fall of the Soviet Union) been allowed to say and do what they want. They endured almost 50 years of heavy Soviet occupation. that's something most of them do NOT want to relive again. They clearly want closer ties to Europe, not the Neo-Soviet Russian Empire that Putin is building.

Oh, I am certain many of those countries do not want to go back to times past and I can understand that. But the first talks about Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic joining NATO happened in 1997, before they actually entered NATO in 1999. That was back in the time of Boris Yeltzin, when nobody could forsee the way Putin would handle things. In 1997 Russia was still in a state of flux, but I am fairly certain most western politicians had high hopes back then that it would transform into a functioning democracy that would be no threat to its neighbours.

I guess a lot of politicians back in those days were to euphoric after having "won" the Cold War that Russia would become one of "them", a western-style democracy, because people thought that Russia had seen that the old ways didn't work and so would automatically adopt the other prevalent model of government and society. For a time it even looked that way, but too many people ignored that Russia has always been a bit different from other European powers. It was an easy mistake to make at the time, but still a mistake that could have been avoided.

You can't possibly be serious when you say that the western press is more balanced. Maybe they are when it's about things that don't directly matter to them. I think that in the west the government doesn't directly control the media like how it is done in Russia or China. However you need to understand these media companies still do seek good ties with the government, they are still businesses ran in a country. The government very much can and will pull strings to use them to manipulate the masses. Don't let the guise of democracy and freedom of speech make you think otherwise.

To use the UK as an example, I think we only need to look at revelations about the GCHQ spying (linked to PRISM) or the MP expenses scandal to see that the media is happy to go after the government, to say nothing of the more general criticism that goes on week-in, week-out of the Government and its policies depending on the political philosophy of the paper and government in question. Hell, it became apparent during the phone hacking scandal that MP's and senior politicians were no more safe from being hacked then celebrities or "civilians".

Unless we're going all out conspiracy theorist it's pretty hard to argue that the government controls the media or that the media kowtows to the government's wishes... if it did we'd have never heard of Edward Snowden.

I don't think so. Your US can stay hell out of my country. We don't need your protections from Putin in Russia.

A foreign country being in another country is rarely a good thing, no matter who is where. It usually means that a situation is beyond the control of the native country and/or the foreign country has hostile intentions.

During the so-called "Two plus Four Talks" that paved the way for German reunification, Russia was given guarantees by western politicians that NATO would not expand eastward. That was in 1990.

I've posted this before, but again: Some feel there was no official guarantee.

And perhaps even IF one assumed there had been... Then, many of the (formerly Soviet) parties that made it changed heir own composition so much after the talks, and undid so many of the things some of their former leaders or members had said earlier -- after they assumed quite different constituents and borders that were not subject to Nato discussion at all -- that one might wonder how to keep the spirit of whatever was said earlier. (There is some discussion of that angle in the same link.)

Quote

I don't think it's all that much about feeling threatened, but a lot about feeling deceived and being sidelined, because you only tell someone something to their face and then do the opposite if you think you can get away with it. And you only think you can get away with it if you think the other side is too weak to do anything about it.

Well, I do think at least part of what people who support Putin sometimes say (and perhaps well enough what Putin thinks too), is that the US in particular applies its rules for international order quite selectively when it likes. And there is something to that. People should be very clear when they are really reacting to just that, and how exactly they feel Russia should react to it. Usually they aren't very clear about what kind of order they do want. In the Crimea case, Putin's supporters tend to mention this problem more after the fact. It gets used as an excuse for what has already happened just lately, rather than as part of some alternative model for foreign policy that everyone could argue about or agree to follow.

I would be more impressed with it if they had some positive alternative... Is this supposed to be Russia now 'taking over' where the UN has failed the world, or what? And how exactly? Or is this a more "every country should have certain regional exceptions" sort of policy... But then, well, why can't just anyone in the South Pacific decide to militarize the South China Sea, if everyone gets to do what they feel like in their backyard? Etc. Whatever it is, IF you think Russia claims to be making a positive model everyone can follow... Tell me what that model is.

What I tend to suspect is really happening is: Russia applies simple realpolitik, takes as much as it can by force, and makes flimsy pseudo-idealist excuses that the West is no better. Or even, excuses that the West (mainly the US) did "worse" things in the past -- but if you look at this, it means "worse" deeds under much the same principles that Russia seems to be actually following now. If that's what you want everyone to do all the time, okay... But then spare me the excuses and false, self-serving waves to idealism.

The more common pro-Putin version right now -- I mean, using "The US did it too" more as an excuse -- oftens end up in self-contradiction. There are so many cases where the supporters echo Putin and say on one hand, "There was no invasion" when there obviously was --- and almost in the same breath, many also say "But the US has done much the same or worse at some points, so Russia should be allowed to do whatever it feels is right for its own security." To be consistent, they should pick one or the other. If it's a better model, then give me the model. Not just the excuse that Russia should act as badly as anyone else ever has.

I'll paraphrase Noam Chomsky here, in a way I think is 1) appropriate given how people define Russia's national security as requiring physical ownership of Crimea and 2) incidentally, very ironic given how much Russia has droned on about fears of neo-Nazis. Chomsky once said of the American neoconservatives such as Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, "If you're going to be a Nazi, at least be honest about it." He was referring to their overall sense of exceptionalism, particularly in how they defined US national security in ways that allowed interference in other countries' affairs. Almost the same phrase can be used in the Crimea case, with very slight changes: Whatever you're actually doing... If you're going to take a buffer zone by force... Or perhaps with Yanukovich, if your'e going to enforce Ukraine having a corrupt, puppet government... Or if you're going to invade to protect separatists before they have a referendum, such that your troops already control all the official buildings... Whatever you're going to do, call it what it is. "Be honest."

Quote

Something that I think is often overlooked in situations like this is that political actors are just people. And sometimes people do things for reasons that may not be entirely logical, or are based on emotional logic. And they all see things through their own lense.

It's true in a way perhaps. But recently, many Americans are fed up with our own courts saying oh, corporations should be allowed to act that way in politics. We want some level of reason and accountability in our process. There is an idealism that says: Things should be done somehow cleaner and better. Of course, others -- including quite a few of them on the Supreme Court -- think there is really no way to improve much and maybe we should just let the big money talk. (Or in the case of Crimea, perhaps it's let the guns and first foreign army to hop in and occupy, talk.)

Quote

Sometimes they act more for the "home audience" than one might think when looking at a conflict like this from th outside. A lot of what Putin says or does is addressed at Russians, just as a lot of what Western politicians say and do is formulated in a certain way to send a message to their own nationals. Just ascribing the actions of one politician or another to a single reason is easy, but I think it might sometimes miss the mark.

I wouldn't deny some of it is for a domestic audience. But Russia has a reputation for restricting and manipulating its own media, so we may wonder how much that home audience is perhaps being led along, instead of leading events. It's even possible that in the process of feeding them what he wishes them to hear and making himself out to be a strongman, Putin has backed himself into a corner where he has to make a show of sending the troops, or he won't look 'tough' enough to match his own prior rhetoric in this situation.

And back to that question of who exactly are Russians, or perhaps 'Russian enough' to count then? If Moscow starts issuing passports to officially 'Russify' the secret police fleeing Kiev, or to give instant citizenship to people of Crimea -- all obviously established just for this specific situation, legislation changed overnight -- then who else will be defined as Putin's consituency or audience in the future? Russian speakers in Lithuania? Moldova? Poland? Alaska? New York? Are all Chinese speakers in Siberia also potentially 'Chinese nationals' who must be protected? (I feel like people keep avoiding this question.)

There's no clear international agreement about how long a group of people have to live somewhere, before they supposedly "belong to" that territory. Putin's supporters have made much of the history with Crimea being assigned to Ukraine as a choice of Kruschev: According to them, this made it a potentially illegitimate, Soviet era action. But if that is the case... Then wasn't it also a Soviet era action that placed many, many ethnic Russians and other Russian speakers even, in Crimea, the Baltics and other regions across the former Eastern Bloc countries in the first place? One might use the same logic to say those people don't legitimately belong there in the first place -- so Putin has no right to be using their presence as an excuse to invade or interfere. It's more likely that he's following a Soviet mentality, wherein they were placed there precisely in order that Russia would make such an excuse to interfere later.

By your definition yes, by others? No. Over all, a US led invasion is a -good- thing. Not a bad thing. Stop trying to make the Russians seem like nice people. As a government they are NOT nice. They are a cruel and petty people more concerned about increasing their own power and restoring the Russians to their glory days (in whatever manner they can and fuck the people they tromp all over. If Russia wants it, you'd better give it to them or they will kill you).

The US leg invasions had caused many people to die, that's not a good thing. Are the people of those nations better off now than before, that's very debatable. But the US had its reasons for attacking these nations because they did not adhere to the interest of the US. Not because the government is not democratic or other such nonsense. Like I said before Saudi Arabia is a place with huge human rights issues and where women are treated as lesser beings. Does the US do a single thing about that? No, because the Saudi government adheres to US interest and is quite close to the US.

I'm not trying to make Russian's the nice people, I don't see any government as nice. But to say that the US is on a level above Russia is just wrong. The fact that you think Russia right now is trying become Soviet Union 2.0 is very misleading. Yes Russia wants to be a global player again, but I think there's nothing wrong with having a multi polar world. But the method in which Russia does this seems to be a more economic and energy route than just military. Because let's be honest, with the US spending more money than the next 5-6 countries combined on it's military, it's hard for any country to win against the US in a conventional warfare.

The Russian record of humans rights, of the freedom of the press and such is very poor. Russia is looking to literally absorb its neighbors and if they can get the world to look to the side while they do that to Ukraine, they will do it to other places too. Moldavia, more of Ukraine, the Baltic states, Finland, Belarus and probably other nations around/on their borders. Reinstating a 'historical' Russian claim and 'protecting ethnic Russian citizens'. And you can bet other nations would look to use the exact same excuse on their neighbors to grab land. I could see some in Mexico trying to use that as justification to try to seize the American Southwest. There's already hints in places like Hungary that are looking at using the same methods Putin is using.

I do agree on possible human rights issues, but same with a lot of countries and some of these countries the US is allied with. I don't agree that Russia is literally trying to absorb former soviet states. Once you understand how Russia is trying to become a global player (through being an energy power) you'd understand Russia doesn't wish to run into military conflicts unless it's forced to.

I think quite hilarious how you mention Mexico, and justifications for seizing American Southwest. Because there's no way that Mexico stand a ghost of a chance beating the military might of the US, like I said, no one does. So I think it's plausible to say US territory is quite safe.

To use the UK as an example, I think we only need to look at revelations about the GCHQ spying (linked to PRISM) or the MP expenses scandal to see that the media is happy to go after the government, to say nothing of the more general criticism that goes on week-in, week-out of the Government and its policies depending on the political philosophy of the paper and government in question. Hell, it became apparent during the phone hacking scandal that MP's and senior politicians were no more safe from being hacked then celebrities or "civilians".

I do agree that the western media is more open than say Russia or China where the government owns the media networks. However I do it has a major driving force in molding the people of its nations to think the way the government wants to.

The examples you linked are less likely to happen in Russia in China due to a tighter control, however you have to admit before these invasions the US did, the media did paint these countries in a bad way in order to gain the support of its people.

Geopolitics has certain rules, and you can no more ignore them than you can ignore the rules of Gravity:

Rule 1: He who has the biggest stick calls the shots. - This is why having a nuclear trump card in your back pocket will ALWAYS buy you a seat at the negotiating table of geopolitics

Rule 2: A power vacuum will be filled.

What we are seeing here is rule 2 in action.

The collapse of the old USSR created a power vacuum. The Ukraine isn't part of the European power bloc (yet) and it's not part of the Russian power bloc either.

For the last 15 years or so, the Former eastern European soviet states have been in a no-mans land..a kind of poltical de-militarized zone between west and east.

Unforatunately, the European Union has stupidly decided to expand further and further East, and there have been noises within the Ukraine about becoming part of the EU.

That would bring the EU power bloc right up to Russia's doorstep. Forget all the nice diplomacy stuff..peel away the veneer and we are back in the world of 1914 and European empire building games. Russia will not allow it.

Hence, Russia will feel obliged to move into the Ukraine to fill the power vacuum before the EU does the same.

The people I feel sorry for are ordinary Ukrainians. They unfortunately seem to be under the impression that joining the EU would be like getting a ticket to Disneyland. In truth, they have a choice between a rock and a hard place.

The people I feel sorry for are ordinary Ukrainians. They unfortunately seem to be under the impression that joining the EU would be like getting a ticket to Disneyland. In truth, they have a choice between a rock and a hard place.

Most Ukrainians don't think joining EU is Disneyland. We aren't so naive, or simple.

I'd like to give you all an update on the situation. Ukraine is in a civil war. The army is killing seperatists and the seperatists are shooting down government airplanes. All without Russia's help or interference, the troops on the border have, as Putin said, left the border and went back to their own stations.

So where is Kerry? Where is NATO? Where is the EU? They've sparked the fire in Ukraine and now that the shit hit the fan, they're awefully quiet. It was to be expected after Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc, etc.

Instead of helping to find a political solution, they are sending billions of dollars to a country which is in a state of war. Good job IMF, good job America. Superb research, pathetic effort.

On top of that, Gazprom, as of this morning, has terminated gas supply to Ukraine because there still is a 4 billion dollar debt they have to pay and if they have paid, they will have to pay the gas money up front. The only gas going through Ukraine, is the gas meant for Europe.

I'm not here to gloat and claim I was right all along at the fact that 'the West' was out against Russia and not to help out Ukraine, which obviously I was but I hold no grudge against Ukraine. It's a beautiful country with incredibly friendly people who deserve the help of an independent party to help them out. Negotiate peace between the east and the west and stop the senseless violence against civilians. The independent parties helped them plunge into civil war and then said... job done. So again I ask you this question.

Where is NATO? Where is the EU? Where is the whole world now that a country desperately needs help? Wake up! This is not the middle east or Africa. This is Europe!

*edit*

I mean not to sound aggressive or insultive to anybody, so if I did, I do apologize and I did not mean that. I genuinely want a discussion about what I think is a lack of support for Ukraine currently.

2. NATO, unlike a single state like Russia, has to have an established policy set by member nation leadership to react to situations like this. Remember it is for defense. Ukraine isn't a member and HASNT called for NATO assistance.

3. The EU is still building policy AND this is (at the moment) still an internal matter. Civil War, so long as it doesn't spill over borders is an internal matter. Sadly.

4. The lack of a documented media response on Sec Kerry, President Purin, or even Mickey Mouse is not the same as an actual lack of response. Affairs of State like this are, by their nature, delicate and behind closed doors. hell, odds are the outside groups are most likely still trying to talk to the pro Russian leadership via phone.

That being said, I applaud Putins pull back of forces while shaking my head at the cut off of the LNG feed by Gasprom. embargoing Ukraine, and possibly Europe in part or whole, WILL come back to haunt them.

Additionally,you forgot that the US was already trying to mediate things in the gulf state regions before this blow up this weekend. Sec Kerry can only be in SO many places at once. Physically.

not to mention all sides, outside Ukraine,mare most likely trying to see who is leading the pro-Russian forces given that the known leaders car was hit this weekend during fighting.

2. NATO, unlike a single state like Russia, has to have an established policy set by member nation leadership to react to situations like this. Remember it is for defense. Ukraine isn't a member and HASNT called for NATO assistance.

NATO was pretty quick with a 'policy' when Russia 'invaded' Ukraine where they not? :)

3. The EU is still building policy AND this is (at the moment) still an internal matter. Civil War, so long as it doesn't spill over borders is an internal matter. Sadly.

If it was so internal, why did they get involved in the first place?

4. The lack of a documented media response on Sec Kerry, President Purin, or even Mickey Mouse is not the same as an actual lack of response. Affairs of State like this are, by their nature, delicate and behind closed doors. hell, odds are the outside groups are most likely still trying to talk to the pro Russian leadership via phone.

That being said, I applaud Putins pull back of forces while shaking my head at the cut off of the LNG feed by Gasprom. embargoing Ukraine, and possibly Europe in part or whole, WILL come back to haunt them.

Additionally,you forgot that the US was already trying to mediate things in the gulf state regions before this blow up this weekend. Sec Kerry can only be in SO many places at once. Physically.

not to mention all sides, outside Ukraine,mare most likely trying to see who is leading the pro-Russian forces given that the known leaders car was hit this weekend during fighting.

I understand that but the point I'm trying to make with my previous post is that if you start something, you have to finish it. Kerry, EU, NATO, started something in Ukraine, against Russia but halfway during the 'incident', the seemingly at least, fell quiet.

As for the gas, if you don't pay there are consequences. Whether it's gas, rent, insurance or anything. If Ukraine really owes Gazprom 4 billion USD and refuse to pay, there should be consequences and there are now.

It's the timing. They cut it off and announced it was for nonpayment. Me, I'd have said to avoid a gas line disaster that it was being shut off till events in Ukraine had settled.

As for why no one in the West is going in. they were trying to mediate in the past months. Physically going I requires several things. A request by the nation in question. Logistics. Troops, guns and the rest don't just instantly appear. (though this does explain some things I've noticed locally this weekend).

There is an ENORMOUS amount of planning required to put boots on the ground. A LOT of things happen. You got diplomats talking (or trying to) all the involved parties. All told over the weekend something like what..a few dozen casualties were reported in the Ukraine, while this issue in Iraq is numbering into thousands displaced and an unknown number of casualties going into the hundreds?

Both areas will get attention though. Gas is involved. Cynical I know but it is the root of both.

ISIS are terrorists, the pro Russian people in Ukraine are seperatists.

Iraq is in a civil war with terrorists and requires a different approach that Ukraine. (I know the Ukrainian government has labelled the seperatists as 'terrorists'.)

Iraq, in my opinion is beyond negotiations and force HAS to be used, Ukraine isn't there yet and probably never will.

The solution in Ukraine is a lot easier than Iraq. I think a neutral party could actually achieve a lot with the Ukrainian government and leader(s) of the seperatists, cause all they really want is more autonomy from Kiev.

If NATO gets troops on the ground in Ukraine, using force against the seperatists, even more shit will hit the fan. Whatever the solution is, sending troops is NOT it.

ISIS are terrorists, the pro Russian people in Ukraine are seperatists.

Iraq is in a civil war with terrorists and requires a different approach that Ukraine. (I know the Ukrainian government has labelled the seperatists as 'terrorists'.)

Iraq, in my opinion is beyond negotiations and force HAS to be used, Ukraine isn't there yet and probably never will.

The solution in Ukraine is a lot easier than Iraq. I think a neutral party could actually achieve a lot with the Ukrainian government and leader(s) of the seperatists, cause all they really want is more autonomy from Kiev.

If NATO gets troops on the ground in Ukraine, using force against the seperatists, even more shit will hit the fan. Whatever the solution is, sending troops is NOT it.

Agreed. And the Ukraine government might not have asked for help, whereas the US has standing agreements in force wit Iraq.

Sadly though, economic pressure in the EU could cause this to be an issues. Something like 15% of Europe's gas goes thru the Ukraine. That is not a problem NOW in the summer! but damage to infrastructure or a civil war that lasts into winter could very much make it an issue.

As I have told you in a PM, I will try to keep the ISIS/Iraq conflict to a minimum BUT you have to admit a LOT of diplomatic focus going into the weekend was on that corner of the world.

EU and United States promises make many of the problems here, since those promises become empty. We don't want, or need, help from Obama and Kerry. We want them staying away, from us. The West doesn't really care about Ukraine, they need minding their own business.

Mishka something needs to change in Ukraine and I think Ukraine itself cannot find a way out. They haven't been succesful in finding a solution for more than 10 years, what has changed now that they should be able to?

Callie, I think it's a rather small point but actually if I am not mistaken Ukraine has asked Nato to get involved a few times. Search for it, and there are articles on ITV, the Telegraph, etc. (I'm in a mainstream Chinese hotel just now and I can't open them to get exact links.) Though apart from the treaty where the US, Britain, Russia (rolls eyes!) and whoever else I forget was supposed to individually guarantee Ukraine's territorial sovereignty in exchange for them handing over the nukes.. Ahem... I don't know that the alliance is required to per se.

Dash... Sure, there are people who think Obama came out looking rather silly for finding so little to do about it all... And yes, you do seem to be rubbing at the usual "Haha, there was really never anything he could do so he should have shut up" notion yourself. Maybe that is what leaders think you have to do to act tough over there, thus Putin invading whenever a neighbor does something on its own territory he doesn't approve of?? But some of us also have an idea that one can at least say what one guesses might be best in a world of less than lovely choices all around. It doesn't really mean you "have" to be Rambo or go back to the Cold War mimicking the Soviet paratroops into Kabul at every single possible turn.

I'm still struggling with the Russian media claim that the US somehow "obviously" fuelled a civil war... When it seems like the war actually broke out after Russia sent advisors and weapons in, not to mention changing its own laws to suggest it would intervene -- one could easily say, "And where are the big, regularly marked (i.e. license plates not covered up) Russian divisions 'promised' for Donetsk," if I argued about Putin the same way you do about Obama. And most of all, annexing Crimea which really set the example.

It is not so clear in the West how it's perfectly okay for Russia to offer Ukraine economic deals if and only if Ukraine keeps the corrupt stooge Putin likes in power -- but the minute a popular movement in Western Ukraine (at least, and there are some being suppressed in the East as well) approves of making a deal with Western Europe, it's all screaming "Russian must be an official language at any cost" and The Nazis are coming." Granted after how many decades of outside manipulation (from the Soviet era onward), there are not all that many squeaky clean people around who can easily get into office in Ukraine either way. But still. That is not all the West's fault, or certainly not alone.

America or Europe didn't start a civil war in Ukraine. Neither did Russia. The country's been devided ever since the perestroika. Nobody ever noticed until now and then suddenly interfered and made something that should never have been an international incident something big. Now that it has become the international incident, they do too little about it to solve it.

But this is not about who did what to who... this should be, from now on, what can be done to secure peace in Ukraine again and to make and keep it stable for the future.

Putin's actions where idiotic and insane but they were a reaction on the EU and America. It's nothing but some muscles and showing who's got the biggest balls and from Putin I understand it, given the many problems in Russia, from Kerry and the EU, I'd expected more.. maturity.